[v3,0/5] use WFE for locks and ring on aarch64

  DPDK has multiple use cases where the core repeatedly polls a location in
memory. This polling results in many cache and memory transactions.

Arm architecture provides WFE (Wait For Event) instruction, which allows
the cpu core to enter a low power state until woken up by the update to the
memory location being polled. Thus reducing the cache and memory
transactions.

x86 has the PAUSE hint instruction to reduce such overhead.

The rte_wait_until_equal_xxx APIs abstract the functionality of 'polling
for a memory location to become equal to a given value'.

For non-Arm platforms, these APIs are just wrappers around do-while loop
with rte_pause, so there are no performance differences.

For Arm platforms, use of WFE can be configured using CONFIG_RTE_USE_WFE
option. It is disabled by default.

Currently, use of WFE is supported only for aarch64 platforms. armv7
platforms do support the WFE instruction, but they require explicit wake up
events(sev) and are less performannt.

Testing shows that, performance varies across different platforms, with
some showing degradation.

CONFIG_RTE_USE_WFE should be enabled depending on the performance on the
target platforms.

V3:
* Convert RFCs to patches
V2:
* Use inline functions instead of marcos
* Add load and compare in the beginning of the APIs
* Fix some style errors in asm inline 
V1:
* Add the new APIs and use it for ring and locks

Gavin Hu (5):
  eal: add the APIs to wait until equal
  ticketlock: use new API to reduce contention on aarch64
  ring: use wfe to wait for ring tail update on aarch64
  spinlock: use wfe to reduce contention on aarch64
  config: add WFE config entry for aarch64

 config/arm/meson.build                             |   1 +
 config/common_armv8a_linux                         |   6 ++
 .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_atomic_64.h        |   4 +
 .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_pause_64.h         | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++
 .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_spinlock.h         |  25 +++++
 lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_pause.h  |  39 +++++++-
 .../common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h          |   2 +-
 .../common/include/generic/rte_ticketlock.h        |   3 +-
 lib/librte_ring/rte_ring_c11_mem.h                 |   4 +-
 lib/librte_ring/rte_ring_generic.h                 |   3 +-
 10 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
  

Hi Gavin,
	I think this should have been V1 (I mean, no versioning, just 'PATCH'), since it is converted to patch. I think we should be able to resend it as V1 and mark this V3 as 'superseded'.

Hi Thomas,
	Please let us know if it is worth/helps fixing the version.

Thanks,
Honnappa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:44 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; thomas@monjalon.net;
> stephen@networkplumber.org; jerinj@marvell.com;
> pbhagavatula@marvell.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/5] use WFE for locks and ring on aarch64
> 
> DPDK has multiple use cases where the core repeatedly polls a location in
> memory. This polling results in many cache and memory transactions.
> 
> Arm architecture provides WFE (Wait For Event) instruction, which allows the
> cpu core to enter a low power state until woken up by the update to the
> memory location being polled. Thus reducing the cache and memory
> transactions.
> 
> x86 has the PAUSE hint instruction to reduce such overhead.
> 
> The rte_wait_until_equal_xxx APIs abstract the functionality of 'polling for a
> memory location to become equal to a given value'.
> 
> For non-Arm platforms, these APIs are just wrappers around do-while loop
> with rte_pause, so there are no performance differences.
> 
> For Arm platforms, use of WFE can be configured using
> CONFIG_RTE_USE_WFE option. It is disabled by default.
> 
> Currently, use of WFE is supported only for aarch64 platforms. armv7
> platforms do support the WFE instruction, but they require explicit wake up
> events(sev) and are less performannt.
> 
> Testing shows that, performance varies across different platforms, with some
> showing degradation.
> 
> CONFIG_RTE_USE_WFE should be enabled depending on the performance on
> the target platforms.
> 
> V3:
> * Convert RFCs to patches
> V2:
> * Use inline functions instead of marcos
> * Add load and compare in the beginning of the APIs
> * Fix some style errors in asm inline
> V1:
> * Add the new APIs and use it for ring and locks
> 
> Gavin Hu (5):
>   eal: add the APIs to wait until equal
>   ticketlock: use new API to reduce contention on aarch64
>   ring: use wfe to wait for ring tail update on aarch64
>   spinlock: use wfe to reduce contention on aarch64
>   config: add WFE config entry for aarch64
> 
>  config/arm/meson.build                             |   1 +
>  config/common_armv8a_linux                         |   6 ++
>  .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_atomic_64.h        |   4 +
>  .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_pause_64.h         | 106
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>  .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_spinlock.h         |  25 +++++
>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_pause.h  |  39 +++++++-
>  .../common/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h          |   2 +-
>  .../common/include/generic/rte_ticketlock.h        |   3 +-
>  lib/librte_ring/rte_ring_c11_mem.h                 |   4 +-
>  lib/librte_ring/rte_ring_generic.h                 |   3 +-
>  10 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> --
> 2.7.4
  

23/07/2019 21:15, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> Hi Gavin,
> 	I think this should have been V1 (I mean, no versioning, just 'PATCH'), since it is converted to patch. I think we should be able to resend it as V1 and mark this V3 as 'superseded'.
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 	Please let us know if it is worth/helps fixing the version.

I don't follow why it should be v1.
  

> 
> 23/07/2019 21:15, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> > Hi Gavin,
> > 	I think this should have been V1 (I mean, no versioning, just 'PATCH'),
> since it is converted to patch. I think we should be able to resend it as V1 and
> mark this V3 as 'superseded'.
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 	Please let us know if it is worth/helps fixing the version.
> 
> I don't follow why it should be v1.
This patch series was a RFC (RFC V1 and RFC v2). It is converted to a patch, I thought it should start with V1.

> 
>
  

24/07/2019 04:44, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> > 23/07/2019 21:15, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> > > Hi Gavin,
> > > 	I think this should have been V1 (I mean, no versioning, just 'PATCH'),
> > since it is converted to patch. I think we should be able to resend it as V1 and
> > mark this V3 as 'superseded'.
> > >
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > 	Please let us know if it is worth/helps fixing the version.
> > 
> > I don't follow why it should be v1.
> 
> This patch series was a RFC (RFC V1 and RFC v2). It is converted to a patch, I thought it should start with V1.

No it can keep incrementing, it is OK and clear.